User talk:SPECIFICO/Archive 14
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:SPECIFICO. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
Men in ISIS T-shirts
Well, OK - I guess you were pulling my leg and my leg came off in your hand. I'm just not good at recognizing sarcasm/jests when they are done so deadpan. --MelanieN (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, I have snuck across the border in the opposite direction many times, mainly to get tacos and beer. Not all parts are closely guarded (Shh. secret). There are guys with rowboats who will take you to their friends with pickup trucks for a lunch "over there." SPECIFICO talk 20:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- I live in San Diego. I can buy from those pickup trucks any time. --MelanieN (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Right, you are lucky. But in Texas these trucks were on the other side and they would take the gringos on a five mile ride to the guy with the BBQ in his yard after the rowboat ride across the Rio Grande. Actually, I haven't done that in quite a few years because there were reports of a sect with a big cast iron cauldron that was making Gringo soup somewhere West of Matamoros. Just about near the place where Dick Cheney shot his wealthy donor in the face when he mistook the guy for a duck. [1] SPECIFICO talk 22:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's a good thing we don't treat our ducks like that on WP.
Atsme📞📧 22:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's a good thing we don't treat our ducks like that on WP.
- Right, you are lucky. But in Texas these trucks were on the other side and they would take the gringos on a five mile ride to the guy with the BBQ in his yard after the rowboat ride across the Rio Grande. Actually, I haven't done that in quite a few years because there were reports of a sect with a big cast iron cauldron that was making Gringo soup somewhere West of Matamoros. Just about near the place where Dick Cheney shot his wealthy donor in the face when he mistook the guy for a duck. [1] SPECIFICO talk 22:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- I live in San Diego. I can buy from those pickup trucks any time. --MelanieN (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Unsolicited advice
Dear Specifico, I am genuinely troubled by your insistence, in several threads, that my edits may be motivated by anything else than improving article quality. In particular at Talk:Donald Trump#UNDUE chitchat from Marketwatch.com, you have engaged in repeated misrepresentation of what happened, even after a neutral well-respected editor, MelanieN, spelled out your error. I feel that your attitude is not conducive to a harmonious editing environment, and this feeling is not limited to your interactions with me. I am taking this to your talk page because this issue should not further pollute the talk page about article contents. You are fond of reminding people to "discuss contents, not editors" and to avoid "waste of editor time and attention"; I respectfully urge you to look in the mirror and heed these principles in your daily interactions as well. If you lead by example, any legitimate criticism you voice will be taken more seriously. Kind regards, — JFG talk 20:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Please document your assertion that MelanieN endorsed your insistence on your gratuitous defense of what was obviously some bad content that I removed? I'm not following your concern here. SPECIFICO talk 20:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- I am not going to re-litigate a resolved issue. Sorry if you do not understand the point I'm trying to convey to you. Good night. — JFG talk 21:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- You didn't respond on the talk page. In fact, I've noticed that more often than not you have recently been declining to respond to the policy-based issues other editors raise with respect to some of your proposed article edits. Argumentum ad Melanie is weak. You can speak on the merits in your own voice if you choose to engage. As is evident from recent discussions, the
legitimate criticisms I voiced
were taken very seriously by consensus, just not by you. This is nothing personal. It's just about the edits you've recently tried to make in that Trump article. Thanks for your visit. Come back any time. SPECIFICO talk 21:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- You didn't respond on the talk page. In fact, I've noticed that more often than not you have recently been declining to respond to the policy-based issues other editors raise with respect to some of your proposed article edits. Argumentum ad Melanie is weak. You can speak on the merits in your own voice if you choose to engage. As is evident from recent discussions, the
- I am not going to re-litigate a resolved issue. Sorry if you do not understand the point I'm trying to convey to you. Good night. — JFG talk 21:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
The Right Stuff June 2018
By Lionelt
Fellow members, I'm pleased to announce the return of the newsletter of WikiProject Conservatism. And considering the recent downsizing at The Signpost the timing could not be better. The Right Stuff will help keep you apprised of what's happening in conservatism at Wikipedia and in the world. The Right Stuff welcomes submissions including position pieces, instructional articles, or short essays addressing important conservatism-related issues. Post submissions here.
Add the Project Discussion page to your watchlist for the latest updates at WikiProject Conservatism (Discuss this story)By Lionelt
After a series of unfortunate events largely self-created, bureaucrat and admin Andrevan was the subject of an Arbitration case for conduct unbecoming. Prior to the case getting underway Andrevan resigned as bureaucrat and admin. A widely discussed incident was when he suggested that some editors he described as "pro-Trump" were paid Russian agents. This resulted in a number of editors from varied quarters denouncing the allegations and voicing support for veteran editors including Winkelvi and the notorious MONGO.
Editors who faced Enforcement action include SPECIFICO (no action), Factchecker atyourservice (three month topic ban ARBAPDS), Netoholic (no action) and Anythingyouwant (indef topic ban ARBAPDS). (Discuss this story)By Lionelt
Breitbart News, in response to Facebook's decision to use Wikipedia as a source to fight fake news, has declared war on our beloved pedia. The article in Haaretz describes the Facebook arrangement as Wikipedia's "greatest test in years" as well as a "massive threat" to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Breitbart's targeting of Wikipedia has resulted in an "epic battle" with respect to editing at the Breitbart article. The article has also recently experienced a dramatic increase in traffic with 50,000 visitors according to Haaretz. There is no love lost between Breitbart and Wikipedia where editors at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard have criticized the news websites unreliability and have compared it to The Daily Mail. (Discuss this story)By Lionelt
- There is an RFC regarding Liberty University and its relationship to President Trump; see discussion
- Activist and commentator Avi Yemini is listed at AFD; see discussion
Delivered: 11:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
ANI notification
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you are involved. The Gnome (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, please don't throw around accusations such as "stalker" and "canvassing" [2] unless you've got something solid to support them. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Your selective pinging at ANI is called canvassing. Your following me to an ANI thread to bring up an entirely unrelated matter, both as to fact and policy is what I call stalking. SPECIFICO talk 15:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Explain revert
You reverted my copyedit here,[3] claiming a "DS violation". Please explain how this is a violation. — JFG talk 07:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's quite evident. We went through a long painstaking process to agree on the wording that was in the article. You were aware of that because you were the volunteer who inserted the new consensus wording. You then did what you inappropriately marked as a minor edit to rearrange the words in a way that changes their emphasis and meaning. This is typical of many such edits you've made that change meaning with rearrangements or modifications of wording. Your edit violated consensus. If you wish to propose new consensus wording in the future, please use the article talk pages, and please don't mark such edits "minor" in the future. As you know, I have voiced my concern about your use of written English and I continue to think this is a valid concern that you could easily address with an appropriate level of caution and consensus-seeking. SPECIFICO talk 13:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- My edit did not change the meaning, and it improved the grammar. But I understand that you don't like my English. Other people have made similarly small changes to this paragraph, and you have not accused them of violating DS; I do take umbrage to your singling me out. Whether this was
typical of many such edits [I]'ve made that change meaning with rearrangements or modifications of wording
, I would respectfully advise you to review the Legend of the Pot and the Kettle. Have a nice evening. — JFG talk 14:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)- Your edit most definitely did change the meaning. I will AGF but it is hard for me to believe that you are not aware of this. Gandydancer (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's very problematic, because if he was aware of the change of meaning, then this was a willful violation of DS and his denials are not in good faith. If on the other hand, in good faith, he was not aware and still does not understand that he often changes meanings with subtle tilts of language, then his understanding of written English is not sufficient for editing in this difficult and charged topic area. However, we should not speculate about our colleagues' motivations and inner processes. Once these problem edits are identified and concerns are raised on talk, it's fair to say at the least that a much more cautious approach is advisable. SPECIFICO talk 16:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Your edit most definitely did change the meaning. I will AGF but it is hard for me to believe that you are not aware of this. Gandydancer (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- My edit did not change the meaning, and it improved the grammar. But I understand that you don't like my English. Other people have made similarly small changes to this paragraph, and you have not accused them of violating DS; I do take umbrage to your singling me out. Whether this was
OK, I heard you, my English sucks, I did not contest your revert, this is settled. Now how about this recent edit of yours, helpfully labeled "Copyedit (minor)". Wouldn't you agree that it damn well changes the meaning, and is therefore not a minor copyedit? — JFG talk 19:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well, clearly no, I don't think so. What's your concern?
- And of course nobody here cares about your English, only your editing. No need to feel personally sleighted. SPECIFICO talk 19:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- (
Buttinsky) ...who stated that he was in excellent health, and that although his weight and cholesterol level were higher than recommended, his cardiac assessment revealed no medical issues.
vswho stated that he was in excellent health, although his weight and cholesterol level were higher than recommended, and that his cardiac assessment revealed no medical issues.
I've read it over and over again, and the meaning comes out the same - he was in excellent health, his weight & cholesterol levels are higher than recommended, and his cardiac assessment revealed no medical issues. WTH?? Semantics, pedantics...it's the 🚽 calling the kettle what? To dump it? 😂- No ma'am. The subordinate clauses are associated with different issues in the 2 versions. I suspect this is true in most languages, but the sentence structure would reflect it in diverse ways. SPECIFICO talk 20:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- And this is exactly why I said my edit improved the grammar: in my version, the clause "no issue with cardiac assessment" is clearly related to the "despite overweight and high cholesterol" fact. The cardiologists who commented on the health report all said that given Trump's weight and LDL cholesterol, they would expect some heart issues, so that it's surprising none were detected. The other version is just a run-on sentence that lacks precision. But well, we have some ominous DS vigilantes, and God forbid we try and improve grammar or clarity of the written word for the sake of our readers.[FBDB] — JFG talk 20:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- No the other cardiologists that looked at the lab findings did not say that because no physician would say that. You seem to misunderstand "heart issues" as being perhaps something "detected" by looking at a diseased heart. That's not how the danger of a myocardial infarction is detected. You may think, and the general public may think, that "heart disease" is like for instance "lung disease" in that it can be observed and detected in similar fashion. Actually a person's heart may look just fine until the moment that a chuck of plaque breaks off and causes a cardiac infarction (or cerebral infarction). Gandydancer (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- And this is exactly why I said my edit improved the grammar: in my version, the clause "no issue with cardiac assessment" is clearly related to the "despite overweight and high cholesterol" fact. The cardiologists who commented on the health report all said that given Trump's weight and LDL cholesterol, they would expect some heart issues, so that it's surprising none were detected. The other version is just a run-on sentence that lacks precision. But well, we have some ominous DS vigilantes, and God forbid we try and improve grammar or clarity of the written word for the sake of our readers.[FBDB] — JFG talk 20:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- No ma'am. The subordinate clauses are associated with different issues in the 2 versions. I suspect this is true in most languages, but the sentence structure would reflect it in diverse ways. SPECIFICO talk 20:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- (
Your "minor copyedit"
Replying separately to explain my concern on what you called a minor copyedit,[4] where I see not one but two significant changes of meaning.
Before:
His first published book in 1987 was Trump: The Art of the Deal, co-authored with Tony Schwartz who says he wrote the book mostly by himself.
After:
His first published book in 1987 was Trump: The Art of the Deal, in which Trump is credited as co-author with Tony Schwartz, who has stated that he wrote the book by himself.
Note that the first version directly asserts co-authorship, whereas the second one only says that Trump is "credited as" co-author, leaving the effective co-authorship in doubt. Note also the sudden disappearance of the "mostly" qualifier which was in the original version. This most certainly changes the meaning of the sentence: did Tony Schwartz say he wrote the book "mostly by himself" or just "by himself"? I don't even know the answer without going back to read sources, but this change cannot be called a minor copyedit. Especially not by somebody who often nitpicks over her fellow editors' turns of phrase and mastery of English. — JFG talk 20:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Look, there's no there there. The editor of that version thanked me for the (m). Thanks for your visit. Come back any time. SPECIFICO talk 21:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Your lack of answer to my substantive points is noted. Good night. — JFG talk 22:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I was also troubled by the disappearance of "mostly" from the sentence, so I read through the source provided. It does not say "mostly"; on the contrary, it says that Schwartz wrote the draft and sent it to Trump, who made only a few minor changes. Of course that is Schwartz himself talking, but there is also a quote from the publisher, also saying that Trump did no writing. So "mostly" does not appear to be justified, and removing it matches the source more closely. However, removing it was not a "minor copyedit". --MelanieN (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- I always take care to conform our article text to the cited sources. It surprises me how often folks don't carefully read the citations. Thanks for your comment here. SPECIFICO talk 16:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I was also troubled by the disappearance of "mostly" from the sentence, so I read through the source provided. It does not say "mostly"; on the contrary, it says that Schwartz wrote the draft and sent it to Trump, who made only a few minor changes. Of course that is Schwartz himself talking, but there is also a quote from the publisher, also saying that Trump did no writing. So "mostly" does not appear to be justified, and removing it matches the source more closely. However, removing it was not a "minor copyedit". --MelanieN (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Your lack of answer to my substantive points is noted. Good night. — JFG talk 22:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Just a heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. As you may know, the complainant JFG seems to have been stalking me for some time. Seems to be trying to use all sorts of noticeboards to kill me off. Kinda creepy, but I have nothing to do with that IP. You're welcome to check my IP as long as it's not disclosed. SPECIFICO talk 13:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Complaint withdrawn. — JFG talk 16:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- You realize that you've utterly discredited yourself over the past month. I hope you'll cut it out -- it's not just a waste of your time, but you drag down the community and encourage others to do the same. Thanks for your visit. I presume you didn't want your IP checked. SPECIFICO talk 16:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Complaint withdrawn. — JFG talk 16:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
AE notice
For your bright-line 1RR violation at Donald Trump, and given the multiple recent warnings you received in the AP2 area, I have opened an AE sanction process. Sorry. — JFG talk 13:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- The good faith practice in these AP articles has always been to inform the frequent editors of obvious errors rather than immediately jumping to a noticeboard. As a matter of fact, I was so careful to check whether your edit was a "revert" -- in which case it could not be reinserted without consensus -- that I forgot that I'd made that other unrelated edit the night before. At any rate, I hope you'll do editors the courtesy of a note before bringing the community and Admins into addressing such errors. I'm not the brightest horse in the barn, but I'm not dumb enough to deliberately make a "bright line violation" in a closely watched article. No harm. I suggest you withdraw your AE complaint. SPECIFICO talk 14:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- I've opened a talk page thread here [5]. SPECIFICO talk 15:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Case closed. I'll be sure to give you a chance to self-revert if it happens again. — JFG talk 16:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- What I hope you'll realize is that Admins are not static. They observe your behavior over time, and they learn about you, and they adjust the framework by which they evaluate your actions. Up until the past month or so, you enjoyed the normal, default level of good will, AGF, and credibility, but your bizarre recent crusade against me has been very conspicuous. I have no doubt -- nor should you -- that various editors and Admins are forming a more evidence-based understanding in this regard. Under the circumstances, it would be unlikely that a continuation of your past behavior would be met with such benign outcomes, and it is my hope and expectation that you'll adjust your approach accordingly. Ciao. SPECIFICO talk 16:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Case closed. I'll be sure to give you a chance to self-revert if it happens again. — JFG talk 16:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
AE Action
Please see WP:AE for an item that applies to you. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement request
I have closed the thread about you at AE reminding you of the behavioral standards expected of Wikipedia editors, and warning that not following them in the future will likely lead to sanctions. This has been logged at the arbitration enforcement log. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Got it. Thanks for your time and attention to these matters. SPECIFICO talk 14:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, by the way, for this. In terms of ideas for changing the approach, a couple of days ago the idea crossed my mind to look at the revision statistics of Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:MrX/w and rank editors by the number of edits and number of bytes contributed to the page, and then filtering out users who expressed moderate views on what really was a "meh" issue (Compassionate727) or who came over from AN/I (Tryptofish). The idea was to identify editors contributing to the general "battleground" noise and doing things other than advancing our goal of improving the encyclopedia. You would have ranked pretty high by that particular metric, slightly ahead of the Factchecker atyourservice user a lot of people are criticizing these days. Anyway I'm not saying you shouldn't contribute to pages like that, but I do suggest something along the lines of making a personal goal to reduce the number of comments and replies on pages like that, especially off-topic comments about other users. I'd also recommend re-thinking the way you interact with JFG. I can see how you would disagree with many of their positions, but from my perspective they are doing a pretty good job of seeking consensus and trying to work collaboratively; going after them personally [6] only makes you look bad. ~Awilley (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'll have a look. I am offended by gratuitous scatological rants that add nothing to our discussion. That may be de rigeur among some segments of American or other pop-culture. I see too much of it on TV and in stand-up "comedy" but I think it is very much uncalled for in an editing discussion among people who ultimately must collaborate across educational, cultural and cognitive differences. I'd be pleased to discuss JFG's behavior with you privately but I don't think I should reply in public view. I will look at the MfD and consider what you said. I think it went on way too long and all the issues were really spelled out in the first hour of a several-day thread -- so I have no doubt that I like many others should simply have ignored it after the first round. I'll look at it with your count idea in mind and see when and under what circumstance my participation ceased to add anything to the thread.
- Overall, what I think would help is 3-5 times the number of Admins keeping an eye on these Politics articles and willing to hand out sanctions. I've said this repeatedly for a couple of years now. Ironically, NeilN sanctioned me for calling for enforcement on an article talk page -- after a diligent Admin responded to my plea and issued a sanction! - go figure. I think if we had many more Admins they'd be able to keep up on the kind of interactions you are deciphering and there would be clearer and more efficient enforcement. The current environment has way too high a bar for enforcement -- something DS is intended to prevent -- and the AE threads have recently become too prone to ANI-style drama. Admins are volunteers and the burden is just too great for the relatively small number of Admins who appear to be active at these articles. The editors who end up getting banned have in most cases been obvious problems months or years before the system/Admins finally deal with them. We've lost many good editors who decline to work in the chaotic environment. There must be a better way to channel all our efforts into constructive collaboration. A couple of weeks ago I was going to post a "help-wanted" ad at AN for more Admin patrols of the Politics articles. I may still do that - or maybe you could do it at the next meeting of the secret Admin's Lodge.😁 SPECIFICO talk 18:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, I appreciate the introspection, and I hope my comments didn't come across as pouring salt in a fresh wound. On JFG, I don't think such a discussion would be very fruitful. I tend to give higher "weight" to the complaints of users who I regularly see working collaboratively with users on both sides of the POV spectrum and calling out bad behavior on both sides when needed. For that reason I tend to give more credence to what Mandruss says about JFG than what you say. (I give an even higher weight to what MelanieN says about someone.)
- I wish I had the time to dive in and start fixing problems, but these days I'm lucky if I can make more than two edits or posts in a day. The problems you are describing aren't just limited to American Politics though. We just don't have a great way to deal with POV pushers, especially the "civil" (or mildly passive aggressive) variety. POV pushing is hard to spot unless you are a long-term participant or follower in the topic area. But it's hard to be that involved without starting to feel "involved". If you are not closely following the discussion you can't take anything at face value...how can you tell if a report is from a POV pusher cherry picking diffs, or whether the "opposes" and "supports" stacking up are coming from uninvolved users or partisan warriors? It requires you to do a whole bunch of digging to uncover what is actually going on. You're basically trying to learn what the "involved" people already know from months of fighting on diverse pages, but you're trying to do it in an evening. Anyway this evening is late so I'll stop my ramblings here. ~Awilley (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, by the way, for this. In terms of ideas for changing the approach, a couple of days ago the idea crossed my mind to look at the revision statistics of Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:MrX/w and rank editors by the number of edits and number of bytes contributed to the page, and then filtering out users who expressed moderate views on what really was a "meh" issue (Compassionate727) or who came over from AN/I (Tryptofish). The idea was to identify editors contributing to the general "battleground" noise and doing things other than advancing our goal of improving the encyclopedia. You would have ranked pretty high by that particular metric, slightly ahead of the Factchecker atyourservice user a lot of people are criticizing these days. Anyway I'm not saying you shouldn't contribute to pages like that, but I do suggest something along the lines of making a personal goal to reduce the number of comments and replies on pages like that, especially off-topic comments about other users. I'd also recommend re-thinking the way you interact with JFG. I can see how you would disagree with many of their positions, but from my perspective they are doing a pretty good job of seeking consensus and trying to work collaboratively; going after them personally [6] only makes you look bad. ~Awilley (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO, I was reading the thread at Talk:Donald_Trump#Sourcing_and_due_weight? and it reminded me to follow up on this. Have you given any more thought to setting a reply-limit for yourself? Your participation in that thread included some of the bludgeoning, personal jabs, and must-reply-to-every-comment-ism that contributed to you getting in trouble last month. I don't know if reducing the number of comments is the solution, but there definitely seems to be an inverse relationship between the number of your comments in a thread and the quality of those comments. ~Awilley (talk) 04:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi. Probably not the best day or best thread for that, but if you are feeling so generous, have a look at the dozen or so threads I've been on, including ones with quick disengagement, and sometime soon we can chat. SPECIFICO talk 19:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Artikel 38 and Alliance for Securing Democracy
Due to your edit, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 16#Artikel 38 of interest? X1\ (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Trump anti-Semitic?
You said "Trump's tolerance or enablement of anti-Semitism". I agree. He tolerates it and even enables it in others. In fact I said so in my comment that you are replying to. But I have seen no evidence that he is personally anti-Semitic, either in his words or his actions. And that is what we are talking about here. --MelanieN (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- Not really. We were just talking about whether a public figure might pander to an interest or demographic group with words that signify nothing. I actually replied at AE and got into this a bit more. Trump aside, Judeo-Christian moral and religious teaching says pretty strongly that tolerating evil is evil. Just to respond to your general point -- I don't see a difference between watching/enabling and doing bad deeds. SPECIFICO talk 19:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- We are talking about his personal religious views. That's what the talk page discussion is about. You are the one who keeps trying to change the subject, to whether he meant what he said on one particular occasion or was merely pandering. (If you want pandering, look at his repeated expressions of love and support for Israel; that's what his base cares about. I doubt if he cares at all about Israel.) Your reply at the AE illustrates exactly what I have already agreed to: That some of his followers are anti-Semitic, and that he does not call them on it. All of that is irrelevant to the subject under discussion at the article talk page, which is about his PERSONAL religious beliefs. You are almost certainly right in your first speculation, that he really doesn't care all that much about religion. IMO you were dead wrong in believing that his public embrace of his Jewish family was simply pandering to a group you think he despises. You keep harping on that one quote, but he has said the same thing often in many other venues. I think Atsme quoted a few of them at the discussion. There is literally no direct evidence that he hates Jews. There is a lot of direct evidence that he has no problem at all with, and even embraces, his daughter's choice of religion. That tolerance is in itself an expression of his feelings about religion and should be in the section about his religious views. That's the bottom line. --MelanieN (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- Melanie, listening to you over the past couple of days, I'm having a hard time understanding why you're so exercised over this, why it has a tinge of personal accusation, and why you repeatedly misrepresent my statements -- for example that I say he despises Jewish folks, when I've said over and over the most likely thing is that he's entirely indifferent to anything in the world that doesn't benefit him more or less directly. This business about "hate Jews" is truly bizarre, and it's not appropriate for you or anyone else to make comments that would lead any reader to attribute that view to me. Gotta hop. More later. Your idea about it being any sort of issue for a family member to change religions is very strange and troubling by the way. It's a very, very loaded thing to say. SPECIFICO talk 20:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- 1) "So exercised"? You are the one who has bludgeoned the talk page with your opinion that he was just pandering with that quote and didn't mean it. I am a latecomer to that discussion. 2) Your much-disputed paraphrase of what you thought might be going through his head - unwashed, dumb - those are things a person would say about a group he despises. 3) About a family member changing religions: I have a friend whose parents broke off all contact with her when she married a Jewish man and converted. I have a non-so-distant ancestor whose Lutheran parents literally disowned her for marrying a Catholic man. This is a real issue for some people. 4) At the talk page, just to take the conversation off that one discussed-to-death quote, I am going to post some other times he boasted of his Jewish family in front of a general audience, not a Jewish one. --MelanieN (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- Melanie, listening to you over the past couple of days, I'm having a hard time understanding why you're so exercised over this, why it has a tinge of personal accusation, and why you repeatedly misrepresent my statements -- for example that I say he despises Jewish folks, when I've said over and over the most likely thing is that he's entirely indifferent to anything in the world that doesn't benefit him more or less directly. This business about "hate Jews" is truly bizarre, and it's not appropriate for you or anyone else to make comments that would lead any reader to attribute that view to me. Gotta hop. More later. Your idea about it being any sort of issue for a family member to change religions is very strange and troubling by the way. It's a very, very loaded thing to say. SPECIFICO talk 20:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- We are talking about his personal religious views. That's what the talk page discussion is about. You are the one who keeps trying to change the subject, to whether he meant what he said on one particular occasion or was merely pandering. (If you want pandering, look at his repeated expressions of love and support for Israel; that's what his base cares about. I doubt if he cares at all about Israel.) Your reply at the AE illustrates exactly what I have already agreed to: That some of his followers are anti-Semitic, and that he does not call them on it. All of that is irrelevant to the subject under discussion at the article talk page, which is about his PERSONAL religious beliefs. You are almost certainly right in your first speculation, that he really doesn't care all that much about religion. IMO you were dead wrong in believing that his public embrace of his Jewish family was simply pandering to a group you think he despises. You keep harping on that one quote, but he has said the same thing often in many other venues. I think Atsme quoted a few of them at the discussion. There is literally no direct evidence that he hates Jews. There is a lot of direct evidence that he has no problem at all with, and even embraces, his daughter's choice of religion. That tolerance is in itself an expression of his feelings about religion and should be in the section about his religious views. That's the bottom line. --MelanieN (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
annoying person with an opinion—template to be created
. My personal opinion is that DJT has no concept of or opinions about religion. Despite his horrid statements to the contrary, I don’t even think he is anti-Islam, much less anti-Semitic. And, I don’t think he’d care if his daughter converted to Wicca if it didn’t harm him. As far as racism, that may be a different story as I think he may have early formed biases which he is unable to shake. But, I don’t know as you can’t read the mind of a person that believes that truth is malleable. I believe that truth is beyond human ken, which is why I tend to avoid using the term unless it is provable by Boolean algebra. Mel, you’re the most balanced admin I’ve found. But, I’d probably strike the shame on you bit. Specifico, I’d probably add scare quotes to the word unwashed and give less ammo to those that don’t like you.. Regards, O3000 (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. Too bad, I've always thought of myself as rather a likable type. I agree with you about Trump. He may well have the Archie Bunker Queens racial attitudes. That was just part of the atmosphere in many parts of NYC in the 1950's-1970's. It would amount to nothing if he were not in a position where his views translate into actions and influence. I also agree about the other stuff. He seems to be focused on his personal interests - business and adulation. Unfortunately he now finds himself in a position of great power where careless acquiescence to bad things does in fact implicate him in it. He could have prevented thousands of American deaths by using the US armed forces to evacuate large areas of Puerto Rico. As to whether he contemplated their deaths vs. the approval of his "base" - we'll never know. I don't think he's in the habit of reflection or self-examination, but certainly we are not going to know that. Without any interest in priorities that do not directly benefit himself, I could easily understand him resenting that folks are now holding him accountable for what was formerly private "locker room talk" - even when it's hate speech that previously never saw the light of day, or dereliction of duty that leads to unspeakable human tolls. SPECIFICO talk 00:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
NeilN's talk page
Hello SPECIFICO,
NeilN hatted the thread before I had a chance to respond to your ping. I was completely unaware that anyone had talked about finding a "Jewish Admin" and got involved in the discussion on NeilN's talk page only because he pinged me. It is hard for me to tell whether your comments were entirely serious or partially tongue-in-cheek. Please enlighten me. Yes, am Jewish. I am also a husband, father and grandfather, a construction worker, a small business owner, a former mountaineer, a Californian and someone interested in the history of photography and the arts. If anyone asks me my opinion about a matter related to any of these things, then I will offer it, trying to be fair and neutral in my assessments. I am a Jew but I do not specialize in editing Jewish topics and I do not push a Jewish POV. I also am very slow to express outrage. I estimate that less than 1% of my edits are related to Judaism. I can assure you that I will not make any kneejerk decisions based on my choice of religious affiliation. In conclusion, I am willing to "think long and hard", if you would indicate exactly what I am supposed to think about. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hello Cullen. Without context, my note must have hit like a ton of bricks. I'm traveling today so I won't be able to reply until this eve or tomorrow. My comment had nothing to do with you. "Long and hard" related to the folks who were making the fuss. It related to categorizing people and projecting a group identity on them, which is the basis of racial, religious or other identity-based bias. But I shouldn't say more until I have the time to write intelligibly. Thanks for coming here. SPECIFICO talk 12:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Cullen328: Hi. I am back, if there's anything you would like to discuss. As I said my "think hard" was directed toward the aggrieved editors who advocated soliciting the opinions of Admins who self-identify on WP as being Jewish. One was on NeilN's talk page, the other (we don't know if it was acted on) was here [7]. I don't see any point in prolonging the discussion of their actions since their views have been rejected and closed. However if you have any concerns, please let's discuss either here or via email if that's more appropriate. Thanks again for your note. SPECIFICO talk 19:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying who your comments were directed toward. I encourage you to choose your words more carefully, especially when dealing with "hot button" topics. I will not belabor the point now, but am always willing to discuss things. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Basically, the aggrieved editors were showered with good faith from the rest of the community but still remain aggrieved. If you have any interest in the American Politics articles, it would be great to have more Admins following the efforts there. It will take any newcomer Admin a lot of immersion to tell what's being done by who and why, but this is an area sorely in need of more Admin oversight. I'm afraid you were kind of blindsided, but that's not your fault. I have looked at your profile and I am pleased to meet you - very interesting background, interest, and experience. SPECIFICO talk 20:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying who your comments were directed toward. I encourage you to choose your words more carefully, especially when dealing with "hot button" topics. I will not belabor the point now, but am always willing to discuss things. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Scratching my head...
I have scrolled through the entire page, and can’t find where I said what you claim I said. Diff, please? Atsme📞📧 16:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- Looking at the comment SPECIFICO was replying to, it seems they confused you with User:PackMecEng. ~Awilley (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- I was still looking. If you've found it, I owe you one, Awilley. Eureka. My apologies Atsme. I was looking back in the archives of your posts and not coming up with anything. SPECIFICO talk 23:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- Word PackMecEng (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- Whew!! I wondered...👼🏻 that I am...😊 Atsme📞📧 02:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Unwelcome
You are hereby asked to not post to my talkpage again excepting to alert me to a noticeboard discussion. Feel free to remove this here if you wish.MONGO 14:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well, be assured you are always welcome here on my talk page for praise, complaints, inspiration, and exhortation. I welcome all visitors here and I've found that's far more constructive than banning users from my little crumb of the internet. I'm sorry you don't like my visit to your page. I wasn't sure you understood what MrX was saying, but who knows, I could be mistaken and the matter is now moot. SPECIFICO talk 19:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Problematic language
SPECIFICO, I see that even after you were challenged for referring to Trump's family separation policy as “child abuse”,[8] you doubled down and did it again. [9] While I don’t agree with the accusation that this is a BLP violation, it is still massively POV, inflammatory, and not language that has been used by any Reliable Source. This kind of talk at a talk page can be disruptive and make rational discussion impossible. I’m asking you not to do it again. --MelanieN (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Melanie. I gave a link to 37 million Google returns on "'Child abuse' trump" on the talk page of the editor who complained.[10] Just cause he complains (and as I mentioned, his repeated and imo overblown-drama complaints against me have repeatedly been rejected) doesn't mean his complaints have any merit. Why would you say this language has not been used by RS after I provided the link for this guy to check (not that most of us need to -- it's been kind of hard to avoid hearing it called that). Nobody's proposed putting those words in any WP article in WP's voice ... yet. Considering this editor's history of stalking and harassing me, I think I was polite enough to go to his talk page and I note he still has not done anything to remove his WP:CRYBLP accusations which, as I'm sure you know, are the kind of thing that have gotten many editors banned from WP or from topics that relate to controversial issues. SPECIFICO talk 18:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher)
"Considering this editor's history of stalking and harassing me"
That's a complete lie. MelanieN needs to know it's a lie. Unless, of course, you have some solid evidence to prove this serious accusation is true. Do you?"I think I was polite enough to go to his talk page"
Another lie, as proven by this and this. There was nothing polite in your interaction at my talk page."the kind of thing that have gotten many editors banned from WP or from topics that relate to controversial issues"
So, what you're effectively saying, is that you are trying to get me banned from Wikipedia or topics. The "problematic" Melanie mentioned, as well as pot-stirring, continues. And not just here, but also at NeilN's talk page [11] -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher)
- Get you banned? No. This is not a video game. I hope you have a long successful participation here. Just behaving nicely. SPECIFICO talk 18:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- The president of the American Academy of Pediatrics called it child abuse. You can't get a more authoritative opinion than that. [12] Gandydancer (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- See Melanie's comments above re: child abuse,
"it is still massively POV, inflammatory"
. And you nailed it, Gandydancer, it's one doctor's opinion. But even if it weren't, the conditions at these centers have not changed save for the better over the years they have been in existence (since at least 1997). Considering such, then this alleged child abuse has been going on during the Clinton presidency, the Bush 43 presidency, and the Obama presidency as well as the Trump presidency. In other words, if such massively POV and inflammatory charges are to included in any Trump article, it most certainly should be included in Obama, Bush, and Clinton articles as well, at the very least. If nothing else, if it does get included in Trump articles, the only right thing to do would be to note in the same amount of WP:WEIGHT that the same conditions for children in these centers as well as separation from illegal immigrant parents happened during and were signed off by the aforementioned presidential administrations. Wouldn't you agree? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- See Melanie's comments above re: child abuse,
- The president of the American Academy of Pediatrics called it child abuse. You can't get a more authoritative opinion than that. [12] Gandydancer (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
No I would not agree and furthermore I believe that you need to spend some time researching this topic before you continue to edit with so little knowledge regarding this subject. I'm going to be very brief but I do truly hope that you will do some reading on your own. No, this is not the same situation as in the past. In the past, yes, some children were in detention centers but they were children who came here on their own, not children and even babies that had been separated from their parents and often without telling the parents where their children had been sent or even letting the parents explain to their children what was happening. And, to call the president of the AAP "just one doctor's opinion" is rather bizarre, IMO. And as for your WEIGHT concerns, please read our policy re weight and you will find that you are not correct about that either. Gandydancer (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, thanks for the Google link. I see that this kind of terminology has been used not just by the president of the American Academy of Pediatrics but also by a UN official and an open letter signed by several thousand academics. So this is not original with you and I retract that implication. I still request you not to use it on the talk page, where it is likely to disrupt discussion rather than foster it. "Trump's child abuse" is not a synonym for "family separation policy", and using it in that sense is inflammatory. --MelanieN (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- MelanieN, your request is constructive and I accept it. NeilN's apparent acceptance of the loaded POV and PA assertions of Winkelvi are disappointing. I know he is juggling many balls with all the articles and noticeboards he monitors, but aggressive editors use that kind of acquiescence to promote their agenda, and yes there's plenty of recent instances of Winkelvi making over-the-top complaints about me that were left Admins and the community unconvinced. By the time NeilN weighed in on Winkelvi's talk, I had documented all the RS support of that term to Winkelvi and (if he read the entire record) to NeilN, and Winkelvi only doubled down on his personal attacks and disparagement. Not that I'm not pleased to have Winkelvi visit my talk page any time! Just that he should not smear me on article talk pages, etc. and Admins should not take an evidently hostile editor's statements at face value. SPECIFICO talk 22:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, I don't think that Melanie's suggestion was in the least "constructive" and in fact I find her suggestion very disturbing indeed. My daughter and I were talking the other day about this horrendous treatment of our children and she commented, "we've lost control of our government" and went on to say that this is what probably happened in Germany when the Nazis began to take over the German government...and she called the Germans "good people, just like me!", but slowly sucked along into the horror of what happened there. And I've been thinking, I bet that if Wikipedia would have existed at that time one can be certain that you would have had a similar message to please not use the term "genocide", etc. Shameful request by Melanie IMO. I'm surprised that you agreed. I certainly don't intend to be "constructive" and if the situation arises I will not hesitate to use the term, with proper reference, on any talk page that I post on. Gandydancer (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- What can I do? Get into a sideshow scolding MelanieN and NeilN for sustaining a false equivalence between NPOV editors and NOTHERE ideologues? Scold NeilN so that he gets even more condescending and snippy when I point out his failure to connect-the-dots on various disruptive editors? Not smart moves. These Admins are stretched too thin. I have seen them be very insightful, thorough researchers and synthesizers of content and behavior. I've also seen them make an unfortunate share of errors and respond with defensive resentment when this is pointed out. These articles will get much better only if we have many more Admins actively following the content and the editors. It's beyond the ability of one Admin to fully absorb what's going on here AND patrol other topics, AND patrol Noticeboards, AND reply to all their fans and supplicants. SPECIFICO talk 18:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I really don't know. I understand that you are walking a very thin line here and I am not. I've seen several of our very best editors banned from articles when they were only attempting to edit reality into our articles rather than the push of a majority of WP editors that continue to hold a POV that does not actually represent the broad "scientific" consensus, if you will, opinion. I understand that when one is faced with being banned from certain articles one must bow to the decisions of those that one does not necessarily agree with. As for more admin attention to these articles, I certainly could not agree more. I am experienced in the consensus method and the thing is, to make it work you need an experienced facilitator to take a leading role. We have been able to more or less manage without that important necessity, though it may often take dozens of pages of talk and RfCs and such, but in this case we do need more management, IMO. In my experience a good facilitator does not tell the group what to do, etc., but steps in from time to time to give a picture of where the group is at and how any existing WP policies may apply to the position. Gandydancer (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. Many of these difficulties arise in real life volunteer organizations as well, but on the internet there's a bit of adverse selection at play. No need to say more. I think you know what I mean. SPECIFICO talk 19:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well actually no I don't know what you mean. (=: But as an aside, even in real life it does not always work very well either. An early experience I had in using the method was in our small Maine group protesting our entry into the Iraq war - it worked great because my daughter who led the group had had training. But then one of our group went and gave an interview to our local paper as though he was speaking for our group. It was quite an awful experience. Life can be so goddamn messy, can't it? Gandydancer (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well your daughter ran into the bane of many volunteer organizations. But on the internet, we also have folks who do not interact very much or very well in real life. And some of them can't adjust to a collaborative environment or a set of community standards. SPECIFICO talk 20:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well ker-ist all I had to do was to read the first sentence of your link: In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is to explain exactly what happened in my group (and exactly what is happening right here as well). I'll read the entire article... Gandydancer (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, there are those and thanks for the link. But then there are these as well: Psychopathy in the workplace. Perhaps the first is a threat in the bias problem due to the shear numbers (and they are often easy to pick out, like Trump for example) but the second in that they are smart, very smart, and know just exactly how to steer an article in their warped opinion of Truth and may not be so easy to deal with? Gandydancer (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- There seem to be 2 buckets of editors here. The ones who come by to get work accomplished and the ones for whom this is a primary destination environment. I think that if we insist that WP be maintained at least as well as a real-world work environment, we'd get a lot more accomplished -- even in difficult fast-changing topics. That means, e.g. that when editors deny basic sourcing and content policy we shut them down or everyone ignores them. It means we don't tolerate disingenuous or misleading edit summaries and talk page comments. It means we don't worry about hurting the feelings of disruptive editors when they harangue talk pages with evident nonsense or equivocation or cite false or fringe sources. Otherwise we lose serious productive editors and retain participants who have the time or taste for that use of their energies. SPECIFICO talk 19:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)'
- Well your daughter ran into the bane of many volunteer organizations. But on the internet, we also have folks who do not interact very much or very well in real life. And some of them can't adjust to a collaborative environment or a set of community standards. SPECIFICO talk 20:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well actually no I don't know what you mean. (=: But as an aside, even in real life it does not always work very well either. An early experience I had in using the method was in our small Maine group protesting our entry into the Iraq war - it worked great because my daughter who led the group had had training. But then one of our group went and gave an interview to our local paper as though he was speaking for our group. It was quite an awful experience. Life can be so goddamn messy, can't it? Gandydancer (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. Many of these difficulties arise in real life volunteer organizations as well, but on the internet there's a bit of adverse selection at play. No need to say more. I think you know what I mean. SPECIFICO talk 19:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I really don't know. I understand that you are walking a very thin line here and I am not. I've seen several of our very best editors banned from articles when they were only attempting to edit reality into our articles rather than the push of a majority of WP editors that continue to hold a POV that does not actually represent the broad "scientific" consensus, if you will, opinion. I understand that when one is faced with being banned from certain articles one must bow to the decisions of those that one does not necessarily agree with. As for more admin attention to these articles, I certainly could not agree more. I am experienced in the consensus method and the thing is, to make it work you need an experienced facilitator to take a leading role. We have been able to more or less manage without that important necessity, though it may often take dozens of pages of talk and RfCs and such, but in this case we do need more management, IMO. In my experience a good facilitator does not tell the group what to do, etc., but steps in from time to time to give a picture of where the group is at and how any existing WP policies may apply to the position. Gandydancer (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Sure! I would say bring it up on Jimbo's talk page!! But in truth and sad to say, Jimbo lives in some sort of a dreamland where his initial picture works just fine. Jeeze, mine did too, just as it worked quite well when our Peace group formed - but before it all went to hell. For the most part as far as politics go nothing has gone to hell here just yet, but will the editors that keep us swimming above water, such as you and a few others, and be able to keep us afloat for much longer? Truly, I do not mean to sound dramatic here -- my concerns are, IMO, realistic. Gandydancer (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Seems that a good remedy to an "unfortunate share of errors" and "defensive resentment" by "stretched too thin" admins would be for you to become one and restore the balance of the Force. Go RfA! — JFG talk 19:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Melania Trump
It's closed now so I will say it here, you are correct on why I asked. It was not to stop the close. She does seem to get in trouble quite often for her clothing choices though.[13] I did try to find an article real quick on the shoes she wore that day, but no luck sadly. Only came up with that article about her shoes. PackMecEng (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- Knowing you to be a collegeal editor, it was clear to me that you were extending a simple courtesy before the obvious close could be expedited. I was quite disappointed to see the other editor project some sort of battleground interpretation on things. I find that one's often, shall we say, a bit on the edgy side of things. Thanks for your visit. SPECIFICO talk 00:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- I actually ran into an EC trying to close it just to clean up stuff on the TP. I have no strong opinion one way or another. I don't like recentism in general. But, the article is very brief and we see so little of her I thought it might be worth an addition. Who knows. O3000 (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- I have not read more than half a dozen sources on this, but my personal guess would be that one of the hard-liners within the White House staff went shopping for the schmatte and told her to wear it. She may not have given it a thought until someone on the plane saw it and had the expected reaction and told her to take it off. I'm sure Melania herself has not the slightest idea or concern what's available in $37 dollar poncho options for the taller woman. SPECIFICO talk 01:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- I actually ran into an EC trying to close it just to clean up stuff on the TP. I have no strong opinion one way or another. I don't like recentism in general. But, the article is very brief and we see so little of her I thought it might be worth an addition. Who knows. O3000 (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Could you please add this article to your watch-list? It's having revert issues from the same person as before, as well as an IP address. Thanks.--Froglich (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)